2003 NF interp. #13

[KWH]

Originally posted by Bob M.
To the original question about NFHS Interpretation #13: I've spoken with the interpreter from NH who attended the NFHS Interpreters' meeting last month. This play is no longer in question. The Rules Committe in Indianapolis made it very clear at the meeting that their intention was to leave NF 10-2-1 as it was. This is a double foul since R fouled prior to gaining possession.

If the rationale was as you say: Since R fouled prior to gaining possession, then we could NEVER enforce PSK since Since R is NEVER in possession of the ball because all PSK fouls can only occur during a kick and once R gains possession the kick ends.

This is a known and conscious difference between Federation rules and NCAA rules. In NCAA, R could decline the penalty for K's foul and keep the ball with PSK enforcement against them--but not in Federation.

My answer to this is simple: The NCAA rule makes sense. NFHS interpretation 13 does not!

Why would we write, implement, or support a new rule in NFHS that requires the replay of a punt when a punt is clearly the second most dangerous play in football?
Answer: We wouldn't!

And by the way, we all need to remove one misconception from our minds: Team possession does not change when the kick crosses the ENZ. Until R catches or recovers the kick, Team K is still in team possession of the ball.

Team possession is not a factor for the purposes of PSK enforcement!:
Source: Football Fundamentals I.3. Page 66
AND
Since they got the ball with "Clean Hands" (as clearly described on page 73 of your rule book) if R commits a PSK foul and K fouls at any time during the play and R may keep the football following enforcement of the PSK foul if it declines the K foul.

Bottom Line: The intent of of the rule is best exibited by the following case play.
Play 1: 4th and 15 from the K5. While the scrimmage kick is in flight beyond the ENZ R1 holds at the K20. R2 catches the ball at the K40 and returns the ball for an apparent touchdown. During the play: A) K is flagged for Illegal Shift at the snap, OR B) K is flagged for a 5 yard facemask while the ball is still in flight during the kick, OR after R2 catchs the football and during the return run K6 is flagged for a 5 yard facemask.
RULING:In A, B, or C, R may keep the football following enforcement of the PSK foul if it declines the K foul making it 1st and 10 for R on the 50.
OR,
R may accept the K foul and thereby CREATE a double foul!

While some of you will disagree, this IS the intent of the rule (as written and experimented with by Kentucky) and I strongly believe the NFHS will correct this prior to the 2004 football season.
I do know that this is the correct interpretation for Oregon and California for the 2003 season.

Do the rulebooks clearly support what I just stated? NO

Do the rulebook clearly disprove what i just stated? NO

Is this interpretation the way Kentucky wrote the rule experimented with the rule last year? Yes

Is the rules committee in agreement on this issue? NO, they are split

Does it make sense to allow R to keep the ball after they have met the requirements of "Clean Hands"? YES

Is the country split on this issue? YES

In reality, is PSK an exception to NFHS rules? YES

Best advice on this issue: "Regardless of your feelings on this issue, you should interpret the rule under the guidelines of your state rules interpreter for 2003 and hopefully the rules committee will have the bugs worked out for 2004!" - Ronnie Matthews, Chair NFHS Rules Committee



[Edited by KWH on Aug 19th, 2003 at 03:46 AM]